Housing Minister Ashfield DeVent attacked Opposition MPs who opposed building homes for political gain.

He had asked residents in Prospect to compromise because ?if we don?t compromise in this place, there won?t be any place to live and enjoy?.

He said ?shame? on those exploiting the issue for political gain. Government could build on other sites, but he also had to consider saving green spaces.

When Government planned affordable housing under the UBP at Top Square in St. George?s and at St. David?s Battery residents complained.

?People will not compromise. The same way as the boy who will swing baseball bat in the street. We need to stop and slow down and realise it is irresponsible of the UBP to bring this motion before they asked the people to compromise.

?It is easy for people to go home and turn the key to their own home then come here and shout nonsense.

?They can make this an emotional and political issue but I want it registered for history that those who spoke against immediate housing in an area that was zoned for housing under their area, and we are not pushing the limit, I want them to get up and say why they do not want housing and to explain that to men and women on the streets.

?If we don?t begin to house those people who need adequate housing we can kiss it all goodbye. For political points, they have not even embraced the concept of compromise. I said I was willing to compromise and they were not even willing to embrace it.

?Those who feel put out because we are putting people in homes I ask them to appeal to their Christianity and appeal to their humanity.?

There were guns already on the streets and the problem of housing had to be tackled or it would get worse.

?I?d like acres and acres of land, a ranch in Texas, but that is not where we live. We will see death and blood on our streets. I have spoken to a seven-year-old boy who has moved 15 times and if we continue to play with these people, they will say ?this is not my country, these are not my people, I don?t give a hat?.

?It is easy for these people to pull out a gun or wait at night and pull out a baseball bat.?

He asked how many people in Tucker?s Town were prepared to give up acres of land for housing.

?I am charged with trying to house people and give families some place to go home and come together and sit round a table and eat together. I am charged with giving a child sleeping in a car and sleeping in a different place from one day to the next to give that child a chance to sit at a table and do his homework and become a productive member of society.?

Opposition House leader said residents wanted to know why this was the only area that the houses could be built.

But Mr. DeVent said every place listed by Mr. Furbert as possible sites was in his plan and could be built on. Mr. Barritt then challenged Mr. DeVent to show MPs his plan.

He said Mr. DeVent had accused the residents of being un-Christian because they opposed the development, but the Minister said he had only appealed to their Christianity.

Mr. Barritt, the former MP for the area, said: ?He said he wanted to appeal to their Christianity and humanity. The implication was that people who don?t go along with this housing are un-Christian and inhuman.?

Mr. Barritt said under the UBP, the Prospect housing development had allowed people to get on the property ladder in the 1970s with homes selling for around $25,000 to $32,000 with monthly mortgage payments of $171. ?There was a lot of pride and a lot of promise,? he said.

One covenant in the lease obliged Government to decorate the exteriors every three years, but in the 1990s the UBP Government wanted to transfer from 99-year leases to freehold. The other half of the equation was that Bermuda Housing Corporation (BHC) would be out of the picture.

BHC would still be paid a fee for maintenance but a big ?communication gap? opened up between the tenants and BHC and the situation deteriorated.

Admitting mistakes under the UBP, he said the former Government promised to bring things up to standard but it never happened.

?People up there have heard the call for compromise and be reasonable before, but it has never worked out for their benefit,? said Mr. Barritt.

The area does not have the infrastructure to support 34 new units, he said. It is already crowded, and receives little help from the BHC on issues such as maintenance and policing.

Under the former UBP Government, many of the Police living in the low-rent flat tops at Prospect were moved out to allow renovations. The Police were told they would be able to move back in, however under an increased rent.

Much of the neighbourhood was upset at the move, Mr. Barritt said, feeling that they had not been consulted by the UBP Government.

?The trouble is, Government has changed and the PLP is still doing the same old stupid thing.?

The residents do not want a ?quick fix? but a long-term solution, he said, to cheers from residents watching in the gallery. ?Let?s catch these people a break.?

The biggest challenge facing housing at Prospect is ?congestion, congestion, congestion,? said Shadow Works and Engineering Minister .

Government had to consider to what extent a very limited area will be able to support the infrastructure, she said. Echoing Mr. Barritt, she said residents? concern does not stem from the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, but a real concern about the infrastructure?s ability to support 34 more units.

Area MP Glenn Blakeney told his constituents something to the effect of: ?They needn?t worry, no houses will be built there.?

Mr. Blakeney rose to clarify, claiming he said: ?If you are where you need to be, I can?t see there being any movement in that direction.? Noise from the gallery led Opposition MPs to point and say: ?Ask them.?

?They understood otherwise,? Ms Gordon-Pamplin said to cheers, forcing Acting Speaker Walter Lister to warn members of the gallery if they did not refrain from making noise, they would have to leave.

Next, former Housing Minister Terry Lister said, in Ms Gordon-Pamplin?s words: ?I don?t know what Mr. Blakeney is saying, but that?s not what we in Cabinet are saying.?

Residents had been led to believe they would be able to purchase their homes in the area, she said ? a promise that has not been followed up on in six years.

?Policies may change but Government is Government,? she said. ?You break a commitment and it?s no small surprise people are ready to take to the streets.?

The UBP is not against housing and would never say ?don?t build?, she added ? ?just not right here, right now?.

?Once all other possibilities are exhausted, residents don?t have a problem saying, I?ll take my share.?

There are 534 people living on the two roads now. With 34 more units, that number could jump to between 670-700 ? ?almost an entire constituency in two roads?.

The Minister?s plan to build cesspits to deal with sewage is a return to the 1950s, she said, and there was no plan made public regarding garbage collection. She also questioned what would happen to residents during construction. Roads and fresh water are two other large issues for the area.

Shadow Home Affairs Minister said the UBP pleaded ?guilty, guilty as charged? regarding the promise to sell Prospect housing to tenants.

Although he had not seen the apartments and could not attest to their market value, he was certain units could now be sold for no less than $200,000.

If the BHC sells 100 of those units to tenants who had been hoping to buy since 1998, that would create $20 million for the Housing Corporation ?to run up and down the entire country building houses?. BHC could receive four times what it received in the Budget ?just for keeping a promise?.

He also called on the Attorney General?s office to look into the matter, saying residents? may even have a legal foot to stand on regarding the promise to sale.

Though Mr. DeVent spoke of the challenges and anti-social behaviour caused by homelessness, Mr. Burgess said the same social ills were caused by overcrowding. No psychological or sociological reports have been tabled saying such problems will not occur, he said.

?If building 34 houses will make guns disappear, children start going to school and learning ... I?d build 34 myself.? rose to present a vigorous defence over his efforts in the matter.

When he received the call about the plans, he said he met with residents immediately. Just about all the concerns the UBP had raised were ?absolutely true?, he said.

He told residents there was strength in numbers, that they should begin letter-writing and said he would consult with Government.

Having gone public with regard to not being consulted on the plans, he said he then ? along with Constituency 14 MP Paula Cox ? met with the Minister, and had a ? very productive discussion?.

He and Mr. DeVent continued to meet with residents as well as the Premier. Then, ?the whole process went off-rail because of the publication of an application to the Development Applications Board?.

He claimed he was a team player, and, though agreeing with the Opposition that his constituents were his team, he said he also had to reach a national consensus. ?My Government is going to make a decision based on what?s best not just for my residents, but for the country at large.?

On cesspits, he would appeal to the Minister on the matter, adding: ?I don?t think that is the most prudent way forward.?

Mr. Blakeney also promised to get roads resurfaced and better lighting in the area.

He then launched an attack on Editor Bill Zuill for an editorial written on his efforts in the matter.

? Editor has the audacity, he doesn?t even call me to find out what I actually said, to take me to task in an editorial ... I would like to tell him to be a little more considerate before he uses his venomous ink ... and pen with no accountability to this country. I?m telling him now, and I?m telling all of you as well.?

To his constituents, Mr. Blakeney said: ?Don?t give up... have faith in us, we are going to deliver. It may not be exactly what you want... you may have to share some of that load. But it won?t be overbearing.?

?The honourable member has... forgotten this is not about him,? said Shadow Transport Minister .

He called on Government to make plans public. ?Have they prepared an environmental impact statement? How about parking?

?The area is challenged by access for emergency vehicles already... Has Government planned to address that??

He suggested Mr. DeVent must have a ?secret plan?, spurring the Minister to rise and point out plans are before the Planning Department. ?If they (the UBP) are really interested, they would go there.

Government owns other vacant property which would be more suitable, causing less overcrowding, he said. He also questioned the impact on public transportation and the education system in the area. ?We don?t know (what the impact will be). They won?t tell us.

Then, Government whip introduced what he termed a ?take note motion? declaring the Opposition motion to reject any further development at Mary Victoria and Alexandra Roads ?premature? given the Minister?s ?clear? indication he is prepared to compromise.

?This amendment is predicated on the fact that the Minister and the residents are in the mood to talk,? he said.

The Opposition demanded the right to speak to the motion, with callingit ?not an amendment, but an entirely new motion without notice?.

However, Speaker disagreed, and brought the motion to a roll call. The motion was passed with the 19 PLP MPs in the House voting for, and the 14 UBP MPs voting against.

Then, in yet another dramatic turn of events, Opposition Leader rose to present what he termed ?an addendum? to the motion.

As things stood, the motion which had just been passed was ?just more words?, he said, and residents need something ?in good faith, something substantive?.

For that reason, the Opposition proposed an addition to Mr. Simmons? motion stating: ?And, in the spirit of compromise, (the Minister) will cause the planning application to be withdrawn pending compromise?.

?In good faith, I will accept that motion,? said to cheers and footstomping both from inside the House and in the gallery.